Delhi High Court - Orders
Apoorv Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 December, 2021
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2424/2021
APOORV SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aamir Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State
along with SI Vijay Singh, P.S. IGI
Airport
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 22.12.2021
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed praying to pass necessary orders and directions thereby quashing and cancelling the FIR No. 300/2021 registered with Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi for offences punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a businessman and runs a Furniture manufacturing firm at Jodhpur namely Parigon exports. The petitioner came to Delhi to attend and participate in 52 nd IHGF Delhi Fair 2021(International Furniture Fair) which happened from 28th October to 31st October. The petitioner was leaving for Jodhpur after the conclusion of the said event. The petitioner arrived at the IGI airport and did not realize Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(Crl) 2424/2021 Page 1 of 4 Signing Date:24.12.2021 15:20:07 that a live cartridge was still lying somewhere inside his baggage.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that at the time of the security check at the Airport, one live cartridge was detected in baggage of the petitioner. On the query, the petitioner told the security personnel present at the spot that he was unaware about the presence of the cartridges in his baggage. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner showed the Arms license No. BL/2013/58 dated 4th July, 2013 issued by the State of Rajasthan to the Investigation Officer of the case and he also deferred his arrest believing the fact that he was unaware about the presence of a live cartridge in his baggage.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is law abiding citizen of India and works as a businessman and commands a good repute in the society and the instant FIR would add stigma on his character and professional career when he has no intension to commit any crime. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner has no intention mentioned aforesaid, then he cannot be held guilty and no punishment can be awarded against him.
5. It is further submitted that the single live cartridge cannot be used for threatening purpose. It is also submitted that single live cartridge is not a considerable amount to be secretly trafficked.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to strengthen his arguments, has relied on the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in "Chan Hong Siak through Arvinder Singh vs. State &Anr, Crl.M.C No. 3576/2011" decided on 2nd July, 2012. He further relied on the case of "Adhiraj Singh Yadav vs. State, W.P. (Crl) 754/2020" decided on 31st December, 2020. He has also relied on the judgment passed by the Bombay Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(Crl) 2424/2021 Page 2 of 4 Signing Date:24.12.2021 15:20:07 High Court in "Jerusalem vs. State of Maharashtra, W.P. (Crl) 3569/2011".
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts and laws laid down by this Court as well as other High Court, FIR No. 300/2021 and other proceedings pertaining to the said FIR may be quashed.
8. Learned ASC for the State submitted that the status report has been filed and as per the status report, the licence which has been submitted by the petitioner is found correct and genuine and nothing has been found against him. Therefore, there is no material found to doubt the explanation provided by the petitioner. Further, there are no previous criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the status report.
10. On perusal of the status report, this Court finds in paragraph 7, that after the investigation, the licence which has been submitted by the petitioner is found genuine and it is also not set out in the status report that the petitioner has previous criminal antecedents.
11. In Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay (II), Crimes 1994 (3) 344 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"20. The meaning of the first ingredient of "possession' of any such arms etc. is not disputed. Even though the word 'possession' is not preceded by any adjective like 'knowingly', yet it is common ground that in the context the word 'possession' must mean possession with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession. There is a mental element in the concept of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(Crl) 2424/2021 Page 3 of 4 Signing Date:24.12.2021 15:20:07 possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of 'possession' in Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession. This is how the ingredient of possession in similar context of a statutory offence importing strict liability on account of mere possession of an unauthorized substance has been understood."
12. This Court has in several cases including Surender Kumar @ Surender Kumar Singh v. The State (GNCT of Delhi) &Anr., W.P. (Crl) 2143/2019 decided on 27th September, 2019, Aruna Chaudhary v. State &Ors., W.P. (Crl.) 1975/2019 decided on 25th September, 2019 and Paramdeep Singh Sran v. The State (NCT of Delhi), W.P. (Crl) 152/2019 decided on 29th August, 2019, held that unconscious possession would not attract the rigours of the Arms Act, 1959.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned ASC for the State, and the judgments mentioned above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition as this Court is of the view that the same would meet the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, FIR No. 300/2021 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered with Police Station IGI Airport and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
15. The petition stands disposed of.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J DECEMBER 22, 2021 dy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV W.P.(Crl) 2424/2021 Page 4 of 4 Signing Date:24.12.2021 15:20:07